Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.
VS
Royal BAM GroupRoyal BAM Group
E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

1785 Oak Rd, Snellville, 30078, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ersnell.com/
736/1000Moderate

Founded in 1923, we are a local, family-owned construction and infrastructure company dedicated to delivering excellence in every road and structure we undertake. Our rich history has established us as a trusted name in the industry, renowned for our bedrock commitments...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:348
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Royal BAM Group

Royal BAM Group

Runnenburg 9, Bunnik, NL, 3981 AZ

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.bam.com/
773/1000Fair

🏗️ Building a sustainable tomorrow at BAM! As leaders in the construction industry, we are committed to pioneering sustainable practices that not only enhance our projects but also contribute to a better future for generations to come. Our strategy revolves around f...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:15,560
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Royal BAM Group

Royal BAM Group

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Royal BAM Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Royal BAM Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Royal BAM Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
E-R249071625
Royal BAM Group

Royal BAM Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. company and Royal BAM Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. and Royal BAM Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. and Royal BAM Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. or Royal BAM Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. or Royal BAM Group ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. and Royal BAM Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. and Royal BAM Group, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8